# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0623V

UNPUBLISHED

LAFONDA COLLIER,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 24, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Bruce William Slane, Law Offi ce of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for

Petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Wash ington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On April 26, 2019, Lafonda Collier fil ed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that s he received an influenza (flu) vaccination on December 6, 2017, and thereafte r suffered from a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) . Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Offi ce of Special Masters.

On May 24, 2021, Respondent filed his Ru le 4(c) report and combined Proffer (“Rule4/Proffer”) in which he concedes that Peti tioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Re spondent states that

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims ' website in accordance with the E-Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would cons titute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 “[P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. S pecifically, petitioner had no apparent history of pain, inflammation or dysfunc tion of the affected shoulder prior to

intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduc ed range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would ex plain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position a nd the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master